Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I find a note added by Nature's editors in March 2020 to be the least trustworthy part.



You mean it makes the lab leak hypothesis less trustworthy through appeal to authority, or it makes Nature less trustworthy because they made the comment instead of letting the reader make up their own minds based on the paper only?


I think it is most likely because the note is almost 3 years old. A lot has changed in our understanding of the virus. But much like most opinions regarding COVID, new data can’t seem to dislodge our first takes.


Why?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: